- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:14:15 -0500
- To: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Jul 5, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > 2007/7/5, scott lewis: >> >> HTML5 is a language with two serializations (I'll call them): HTML/ >> xml and HTML5/html. These are both representations of the same >> document. Both serializations of a document must parse identically, >> otherwise they aren't serializations of the same language. There is a >> simple test to ensure that: take a document in one serialization, >> parse it, generate the other serialization from it, then parse the >> other serialization and require the parsed documents are identical. > > ...with the exception of <tbody>'s in <table>'s (are there others?). Well the issue this comes in is with <img>. I imagine any of the canonically empty elements are potential candidates: • img • input • link • meta • area • param • br • br • col • frame • isindex • base • basefont Any others? Though I think there are only a few anyone would likely be tempted to add content to. Maybe: • img • input • meta • link • frame Would we need to define UA behavior for handling such authoring errors? In other words how to handle going from XML to HTML since I don't think there's any lossiness going the other way.. Perhaps these nodes would get wrapped in a <p> element in HTM? I"m not sure. I thought the draft used to talk about this issue of different capabilities and different limitations for each of the forms of the document (XML, HTML and DOM). I can't find that section now. Take care, Rob
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 22:14:29 UTC